GitHub user WillAyd added a comment to the discussion: A new home for pyarrow-stubs?
I can speak a bit to the pandas perspective since that was brought up here. Pandas does have stubs with an entirely separate team that manages them (the owner of that repo is a pandas core team member). They aren't always up to date, but generally the team that manages them does a decent job of keeping them consistent with pandas releases. Typing issues are reported in the separate stubs repository and usually not noticed by pandas core teammembers. The inline annotations are used for internal automated type checking validation, with the idea being that these would catch bugs. However, there are also plenty of ignores scattered throughout the code base, because pandas has worked on stubs for many years, dealt with different versions of mypy / pyright / etc..., and been contributed by people with different levels of interest when it comes to type maintenance. So its questionable if that has actually helped on that front and been burdensome. > It's both reducing the size and making maintenance (IMHO) easier. The importance of this can't be stressed enough. We have had issues in the past with not having a clear directive on how important types are, so some contributors come in leaving them on the backburner and then feel like they get stonewalled during review to fix types. I do think its unfortunate to leave features on the table that don't satisfy the type system, but a clearer directive from a project team could probably avoid that issue. GitHub link: https://github.com/apache/arrow/discussions/45919#discussioncomment-14296726 ---- This is an automatically sent email for [email protected]. To unsubscribe, please send an email to: [email protected]
